list_ordersRetrieve customer orders and filter by status, date range, or customer number. Use filter invoicenotcreated to find orders not yet invoiced.
Customer orders. Filter invoicenotcreated shows orders not yet invoiced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000) | |
| filter | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| customer_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaning of the 'invoicenotcreated' filter, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about return format, pagination, sorting, or auth needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence is a fragment and the whole definition is under-specified for a five-parameter tool with low schema coverage. It is concise without being adequately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters, only 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, usage context, and return behavior, leaving an agent unable to invoke it reliably beyond a default list call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'max' is documented in the schema). The description explains just one filter value, 'invoicenotcreated,' leaving 'filter' alternatives, 'from_date,' 'to_date,' and 'customer_number' undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a terse resource phrase, 'Customer orders,' and adds one filter behavior, but does not itself state the verb (list) or scope. The title/name supply 'List orders,' yet the description alone is vague about what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_invoices or list_customers. The only contextual note is about one filter value, not when or why to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.